• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

United States loses its AAA Credit rating from S & P

Status
Not open for further replies.
washunut said:
Other than the last two years can you point to a time when the deficit will be as high as the upcoming 2011-2012. To say that we will not spend money on anything when spending will be at record highs is just silly.
Click to expand...

Good joke, Pal! :lamo

But you forgot to mention that the Republicans left the house with a desolate economy and a catastrophic financial market in 2009.

This deficit is primarily a direct result of the weak economy (tax income) and that is not the fault of Obama!

U.S.-income-taxes-out-of-total-taxes.JPG


585px-MarginalIncomeTax.svg.png


This analysis revealed a lot of surprising conclusions, including the following:

Today's government spending levels are indeed too high, at least relative to the average level of tax revenue the government has generated over the past 60 years. Unless Americans are willing to radically increase the amount of taxes they pay relative to GDP, government spending must be cut.

Today's income tax rates are strikingly low relative to the rates of the past century, especially for rich people. For most of the century, including some boom times, top-bracket income tax rates were much higher than they are today.

Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed.

Super-low tax rates on rich people also appear to be correlated with unsustainable sugar highs in the economy--brief, enjoyable booms followed by protracted busts. They also appear to be correlated with very high inequality. (For example, see the 1920s and now).

Periods of very low tax rates have been followed by periods with very high tax rates, and vice versa. So history suggests that tax rates will soon start going up.


Read more: THE HISTORY OF TAXES: Here's How High Today's Rates Really Are
Click to expand...
 
American said:
Just save the partisan bull**** will you? Harry Reid hasn't passed a budget in years. We lost our AAA because the spending cuts weren't large enough.
Click to expand...

Revenue increases coupled with spending cuts probably would have been more productive, don't forget about those revenue increases you hate so much! ;)
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Revenue increases coupled with spending cuts probably would have been more productive, don't forget about those revenue increases you hate so much! ;)
Click to expand...

We already tax the economy at 54% (when you exclude government spending)...how much more would you like? 60%? 70%? More?
 
American said:
Just save the partisan bull**** will you? Harry Reid hasn't passed a budget in years. We lost our AAA because the spending cuts weren't large enough.
Click to expand...

Please save us the partisan lies. S&P's said exactly why they did what they did and its not simply because we didn't cut enough spending. They are worried about the bickering in Congress that created this whole mess, care of the Tea-Party.
 
ksu_aviator said:
We already tax the economy at 54% (when you exclude government spending)...how much more would you like? 60%? 70%? More?
Click to expand...

FIT rate of 40% for the wealthiest Americans. That's where it was under Clinton and the economy was kicking ass!!!!!
 
Aunt Spiker said:
But - will the government listen?

It doesn't look like it. I see no evidence that we're going to change the direction of things - but a lot of evidence that the direction of thing swill continue full force.
Click to expand...

This is so true. S&P, Moodys, and one other that I cant remember, ALL warned Washington that unless a significant debt reduction 4-6+T plan was passed they were going to down grade us. Did they give us a 4-6+T plan? Nope..
 
Thunder said:
FIT rate of 40% for the wealthiest Americans. That's where it was under Clinton and the economy was kicking ass!!!!!
Click to expand...

Really? Because I remember the recession that was caused by those tax rates. It was accelerated by 9/11 and most blamed 9/11 for the recession, but the recession began before.
 
We already tax the economy at 54% (when you exclude government spending)...how much more would you like? 60%? 70%? More?
Click to expand...

Increased revenues would have gone further towards balancing the budget, is all I'm saying.
 
Here's what will happen as US debt continually gets downgraded. It means the US will no longer be able to borrow any money. If the US can't borrow any money, it'll have to raise taxes to pay for it. Since the GOP refuses to cut subsidies, the extra tax burden will fall on the working class. So the GOP will become the Party of High Taxes.

If taxes are raised, Amerians will have to borrow more. If Americans borrow more, interest rates will go up. Inevitably, more and more Americans will be bankrupted and the disparity between the working class and the (subsidized) wealthy will become larger. And the US will end up another Third World dump.

Then the IMF will come in to bail out the US, and, as every (educated) person knows, when the IMF comes a bailin', they bringin' the SRPs with 'em!

Ok, righties, do you know what an SRP is?
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Increased revenues would have gone further towards balancing the budget, is all I'm saying.
Click to expand...

Hardly. Every time we increase revenue, spending manages to go up with it. The only solution is to eliminate deficit spending. The Balanced Budget Amendment just got the greatest promotional material possible.
 
Hardly. Every time we increase revenue, spending manages to go up with it.
Click to expand...

Okay, then answer a single question for me, please:

What happens if revenue increases while spending decreases?
 
ksu_aviator said:
Hardly. Every time we increase revenue, spending manages to go up with it. The only solution is to eliminate deficit spending. The Balanced Budget Amendment just got the greatest promotional material possible.
Click to expand...

yeah, and its DOA when it hits the Senate.
 
It doesn't matter how muc htye receive in taxes - it's what they DO with it that counts.

The government is a horrid manager of it's monies - it could be crisp and proper if it so desired but it doesn't. Being populated by a bunch of rich snobs - the ydon't know how to manage money to save their lives. . . anything goes.

Edit: here - here - I found their theme song. . .


Yi wang si-i wa ye kan dao
Xin li bian yao la jing bao jin tian zhi
Dao
Anything goes

In English
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
This is 100% untrue and reaks of GOP lies.
Click to expand...

What else was it? The tech bubble? I'm sorry, but salaries don't drop and consumer spending doesn't drop because one sector of stocks does poorly. The booming economy slowed because we drained it of cash. Pure and simple.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Okay, then answer a single question for me, please:

What happens if revenue increases while spending decreases?
Click to expand...

We'll never know. You can't give government more money and expect them to spend less.
 
We'll never know. You can't give government more money and expect them to spend less.
Click to expand...

You didn't answer the question because it's obvious to anyone that knows how to do simple algebra.
 
ksu_aviator said:
Hardly. Every time we increase revenue, spending manages to go up with it. The only solution is to eliminate deficit spending.
Click to expand...

Deficit spending is the Prime Directive of the GOP. What good are Repubs if they can't start a another war or buy more useless military toys on the backs of future middle class generations?
 
I didn't answer the question because it won't happen and that is not algebra.
Click to expand...

Various plans democrats put forward would have had both and could have happened if republicans voted it in.

Deficit spending is the Prime Directive of the GOP. What good are Repubs if they can't start a another war or buy more useless military toys on the backs of future middle class generations?
Click to expand...

I'd like to take this moment to point out that it is now Democrats defending military spending, not Republicans.
 
digsbe said:
And lowering taxes on the highest bracket by 5% doesn't give us the revenue we need to pay off trillions in deficit? The main problem is increased and monstrous spending.
Click to expand...

No one is saying DONT cut spending. We are also saying raise taxes on the wealthy too. Im all for adding another 15% on their backs at this moment. They need to sacrifice too. Theyve been getting a easy ride for over a decade.
 
solletica said:
Here's what will happen as US debt continually gets downgraded. It means the US will no longer be able to borrow any money. If the US can't borrow any money, it'll have to raise taxes to pay for it. Since the GOP refuses to cut subsidies, the extra tax burden will fall on the working class. So the GOP will become the Party of High Taxes.

If taxes are raised, Amerians will have to borrow more. If Americans borrow more, interest rates will go up. Inevitably, more and more Americans will be bankrupted and the disparity between the working class and the (subsidized) wealthy will become larger. And the US will end up another Third World dump.

Then the IMF will come in to bail out the US, and, as every (educated) person knows, when the IMF comes a bailin', they bringin' the SRPs with 'em!

Ok, righties, do you know what an SRP is?
Click to expand...

This post is beyond silly, I would call it evil. Phoney threats about the American economy and it's ability to borrow money scares people needlessly. Have you checked on what happened to U.S. treasuries this week? People knew that the agreement did not meet the minimum requirements laid out by S&P months ago so a downgrade was not a shock to people who follow this sort of thing.

One out of three ratings agencies lowered it's rating by 1/2 a notch, not exactly the end of the world. Certainly not good but not the end of the world as we know it.
 
Cut spending by $3 trillion & raise revenue by $1 trillion. Pass it with bipartisanship and S&P's would have been happy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom